Several speakers during public comment on July 29 urged the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to allocate opioid settlement dollars to local treatment and recovery providers, saying organizations that presented proposals months earlier have not received funding. Speakers also criticized board leadership for discussing a medical school proposal as a potential use of opioid funds.

Jeff Gorder told the board it had not acted on recommendations from seven treatment and recovery organizations and called the delay “a lack of will.” David Halligan said the county had received roughly $12.5 million in settlement funds to date — “just under $10,500,000 in settlement funds last year and I believe $2,000,000 this year” — and that about $4.5 million had been allocated or spoken for, leaving roughly $8 million unspent, by his estimate. Halligan asked for a public update on allocations and for the board to prioritize organizations that are “helping our citizens in the county now, saving lives now.”

Board members and staff responded in part. CEO Dave Rickert confirmed publicly that agenda item C4 is paid for with opioid funds. Chair and other supervisors noted some items on the consent calendar used opioid monies, and a number of speakers tied their appeals to specific program needs such as jail MAT, alternative custody programs and community treatment services.

Why it matters: Opioid settlement dollars are restricted funds from national settlements that many counties use for treatment, prevention and recovery services. Community organizations and residents said the county should move quickly to fund local programs addressing overdoses and treatment.

What the board said: During public comment and discussion, Dave Rickert clarified that “C4 is paid for with opioid funds.” Several supervisors encouraged public engagement and noted specific items on the consent calendar that use settlement dollars.

Ending: Speakers asked the board to speed up allocations and to provide a transparent accounting of how settlement dollars are being used; one speaker urged the board to “punch it in” for local service providers rather than pursue exploratory long‑term projects.